Results 1 to 10 of 20
-
11-17-2021, 01:01 PM #1UnregisteredGuest
ACLU sues Sarasota & Manatee sheriffs over unaffordable bail amounts
Patch:
https://patch.com/florida/sarasota/a...natee-sheriffs
Tampa Creative:
https://www.cltampa.com/news-views/l...ign=hpfeatures
Herald:
https://www.bradenton.com/news/local...255866961.html
Marxists are using the courts and media to destabilize infrastructure and society.
-
11-17-2021, 01:25 PM #2UnregisteredGuest
The Marxist-inspired lawsuit is based on one petition for 11 inmates in Sarasota's & Manatee's jails.
Marxists lawyers claim that bail violates due process rights of inmates because it is not "equitable for all." Marxist specifically use the term "equitable" and not "equality." Marxism argues that:
- Bail violates the rights of those who violate criminal laws because it is not "equitable."
- Marxists are using the term "equity" and not "equality." There is a legal difference between "equity" and "equality."
- The rights of victims is moot because the defendants have not been convicted.
This particular Marxist strategy has a goal of destabilizing society through "legal activism" in the court system. It's happening now. It's real. It's happening throughout legal jurisdiction throughout the nation. Their goal is to first divide the people - and then conquer them. This is a concerted nationwide effort to destabilize the United States by deftly using the legal system to do so.
-
11-17-2021, 02:09 PM #3UnregisteredGuest
Cool story bro. Didn’t Tom Jefferson write somewhere that all men where created equal? You should try to understand what Karl Marx was talking about. It is interesting and for the most merely observations of societal behavior. Never has one man’s interpretation and writings been so misunderstood by so many people on both sides. Bottom line he didn’t give a shit he just explained it to people. Cliff notes for you so you don’t waste time that could better be used for ironing yourTrump shirt
-
11-17-2021, 02:17 PM #4UnregisteredGuest
"Legal Activism" by ACLU lawyers
695 people have been charged in the Jan. 6 protest in DC – and the non-violent protesters are still locked-up without bail in the DC metro jail. Where is the outrage of the ACLU? Meanwhile in Sarasota and Manatee Counties, the ACLU is litigating for 11 local inmates whose bail is too expensive for them to pay. The ACLU is un-American, counter-productive and divisive.
-
11-19-2021, 09:54 AM #5UnregisteredGuest
I don’t think anyone but you cares. Got to be honest. Rushing the capital was a dumb ass idea. I mean it’s on them. I don’t think “normal” people care. Crazy people worry about it. People worry from their keyboard (like you). Do something other than post on leo affairs! Do something if you really care. Fact is your too lazy to get off your fat azz and actually do something other than beotch about it. Run for office!
-
11-20-2021, 03:29 AM #6UnregisteredGuest
-
11-22-2021, 12:56 PM #7UnregisteredGuest
Hate to bring this up but there is a thing called being innocent until proven guilty. Having that in mind what gives the government the right to incarcerate its citizens without due process? Bail is just that a modern process for keeping people incarcerated without due process. Speedy Trial ever heard of that thing? If you think our justice system is fine then you are not nor have you ever been a cop.
-
11-22-2021, 02:17 PM #8UnregisteredGuest
-
11-22-2021, 03:39 PM #9UnregisteredGuest
Another issue that was settled by SCOTUS in the 20th Century are "plea deals," which did not exist in 1776. SCOTUS settled the issue of plea "deals" by allowing them to continue. If plea deals were not allowed, then the court system could not handle the incoming caseload (and the justice system would collapse under the weight of all the allegations/accusations). FACTOID: It is impossible to offer a trial to every defendant that is accused of a crime.
-
11-22-2021, 05:18 PM #10UnregisteredGuest
In the United Kingdom, it is illegal for a prosecutor to "stack the charges" to intimidate a defendant into accepting a lesser plea deal, but in the United States, it is a common practice, especially if a defendant refuses to accept a plea deal that is offered by the prosecution. The Rittenhouse trial is a perfect example of that. Rittenhouse rejected the "plea deal" that was offered by the prosecution e.g. Rittenhouse refused to plead guilty, so the prosecution subsequently "stacked the charges" against Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse then demanded a jury trial - and the jury found him not guilty on all counts. However, it is extremely stressful for a defendant to take all those "stacked charges" to trial, because it's possible that the defendant could be found guilty of trumped up prosecutorial charges. In the famous video that everyone saw, Rittenhouse collapsed under the stress of it all, after the jury announced he was not guilty on all prosecutorial counts.
If a prosecutor cannot make a case on the original charge/allegation, then it should be illegal in the U.S. for an American prosecutor to add "stacked charges" to force a defendant into accepting a prosecutorial "deal." Again, stacking the charges is a standard practice in the U.S. system.
Bookmarks